Sam Tregar No, the last Redhat Apache/mod_perl I used was in 6.2. I didn't
file a Sam Tregar bug about it because after looking around it appeared
that it was a well Sam Tregar known problem. After that I started
compiling Apache/mod_perl static and Sam Tregar left the seg-faults behind.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, WC -Sx- Jones wrote:
Back in RH 6.2 I would hazard that the segfault was more related to Perl
being set to uselargefiles and Apache NOT being set. This only became
visible when one tried to build mod_perl as a DSO. Building as STATIC caused
Apache to be rebuilt using
-Sx- said Building as STATIC caused Apache to be rebuilt using the now
current uselargefiles setting.
Sam Tregar said I don't think so. Rebuilding Apache/mod_perl static with
the exact same Perl that shipped with Redhat 6.2 solved the segfaults.
:)
How is this different from what I said?
I've seen a lot of comments which seem to me to say that a static
mod_perl is the only way to go.
But Redhat ships it as a DSO.
Now, on the one hand, I wouldn't just automatically assume that Redhat
knew what they were doing.
On the other hand, I've asked a couple local mod_perl junkies I
Hi!
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:32AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
So, specifically for the Linux environment, what are the downsides of
running mod_perl as a DSO? (Pointers to the FM so I can R it would be
fine.)
Did you take a look at this:
On 22 Jul 2002, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
So, specifically for the Linux environment, what are the downsides of
running mod_perl as a DSO? (Pointers to the FM so I can R it would be
fine.)
Segmentation faults, pure and simple. The Apache/mod_perl that ships with
Redhat, and I assume other
Hi David,
On 22 Jul 2002, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
But Redhat ships it as a DSO.
Debian also, but I think that is only for simplicity. It would be
'expensive' to produce static versions of apache with mod_perl,
or with mod_php or both.
On the other hand, I've asked a couple local mod_perl
On 22 Jul 2002 10:26:32 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
DD I've seen a lot of comments which seem to me to say that a static
DD mod_perl is the only way to go.
I've been using mod_perl as DSO for more than one year (or even maybe
two) without any problems on
: Static vs. DSO on Linux specifically
I've seen a lot of comments which seem to me to say that a static
mod_perl is the only way to go.
But Redhat ships it as a DSO.
Now, on the one hand, I wouldn't just automatically assume that Redhat
knew what they were doing.
On the other hand
Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi!
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:32AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
So, specifically for the Linux environment, what are the downsides of
running mod_perl as a DSO? (Pointers to the FM so I can R it would be
fine.)
Did you take a look
10 matches
Mail list logo
